This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
The vast majority of game concepts, prototypes and demos never get published (the IGDA reported in May 2003 that according to their publisher survey there is a 96% rejection rate!). Given this grim statistic, our firm has been able to place a very high percentage of the titles it represents by developing and utilizing a market-driven game evaluation methodology. This rigorous product evaluation methodology, which is continuously being refined, helps ensure that our firm secures games that publishers and distributors want. By revealing our evaluation methodology in this article, I hope to teach independent developers about the processes that we use behind the scenes when considering whether to represent a game and how those measures estimate market-to-market demand for a product.
Cultivate a Solid Game Evaluation Team
An integral part of our evaluation process at Octagon is our team of game testers. A proficient evaluator possesses a number of desirable qualities. For starters, it is important to have a well-rounded history of playing games on a variety of platforms. An evaluator who can articulately compare a number of titles from any given genre is a valuable asset, as an in-depth knowledge of games enables an evaluator to promptly discern an original product from a knock-off of a successful franchise. A basic grasp of modern graphics, physics technology and game design also helps an evaluator recognize competitive products. A worthy game should be visually appealing as well as mentally engaging, and an experienced gamer understands this.
Octagon's evaluation department consists of game enthusiasts from a variety of backgrounds. Many are college undergraduates, several of whom hope to enter the game development community upon graduation. Others are industry hopefuls who currently work in other fields and a few have past experience in game development. One component of the evaluation group is local gamers that are native to countries such as the UK, France, Korea, Thailand and Japan. This rounds out the international perspective and ensures that a diverse audience gauges opportunities not only with US publishers but potential partners worldwide. Since many titles submitted for evaluation are developed outside the US (and not in English), it is imperative for us to have a multinational staff with multi-lingual skills.
Several steps are taken to lay the groundwork for game evaluation. First, individual profiles are created for each member of the evaluation team. These summaries document a person's favorite games, genre likes and dislikes and platform history. Although it is ideal for evaluators to appreciate all genres for PC and console, inevitably some gamers will enjoy role-playing games on the PC but dislike first-person shooters. On the other hand, console sports fans may have an aversion to the slow pace of many massively multiplayer online games. These differences in preference need to be considered when evaluators detail their reactions to products. Evaluators must also sign a non-disclosure agreement before beginning work. This legally binds the employee from discussing confidential information with sources outside of Octagon.
It is also important to educate employees and set a backdrop for game analysis. The article "Fourteen Forms of Fun" (Pierre-Alexandre Garneau, Gamasutra, October 2001) identifies the characteristics that a superior game embodies. Octagon incorporates the piece into its evaluation methodology by having testers use the text as a reference point.
Analyze Worldwide Demand
An opportunity to represent a title cannot accurately be assessed without the knowledge of what types of games publishers are actively seeking. While some companies may consider a game's potential for a North American or pan-Europe deal, our firm implements strategies to look at a game through the eyes of an international business with multiple publishing divisions. Just as a worldwide publisher consults its local offices before moving forward with a worldwide publishing opportunity, our firm tries to break down the sales potential of a game on a territory-by-territory basis. This not only helps estimate sales potential for smaller markets but also calculates how much to expect in terms of a worldwide deal and better assess whether a country-by-country model would be more beneficial for a client.
The needs of the publishing community are constantly shifting; this refers not only to geography but also to genre. For example, the online game market in Korea is much more developed than it is in most of Europe due to the high penetration of broadband, therefore Korean publishers recruit online games more aggressively than their counterparts in Europe. Korea's real-time strategy market, however, is saturated and therefore that genre does not sell as quickly as it does in other territories.
What publishers are currently paying for product also varies from territory to territory, and this is a major deciding factor in the selection process. This applies not only to a title's proposed budget but also to target platform(s), number of SKUs and pending console approval. Our firm maintains constant communication with the publishing community to stay informed of market changes. It is essential to frequently ask which platforms, genres, price points, and release dates are the most desirable to ensure that we meet the needs of its customers and clients in a timely manner.
A cultural awareness that takes into account not only provocative material but also symbols and allusions that hold meaning to different cultural groups is vital as well. An extremely violent game may sell well in the United States, although other cultures may see the content as offensive. On the other hand, a game may be popular in one culture because is it based on familiar characters or icons, although players outside that region find the concepts meaningless or strange. A viable game's appeal usually reaches beyond a niche market and a well-trained evaluator should be able to note potential barriers to success.
Obtain Product Submissions
Octagon regularly contacts developers and publishers from around the world that have games we are interested in representing. This includes developers that are looking for advance royalties or licensing deals, as well as publishers that would like to place their products in territories in which they do not have distribution arms. A portfolio with fully executed NDAs for prospects and customers is kept secured and is continually updated to further ensure the integrity of the evaluation process.
Projects are typically submitted via mail or ftp download, which we then burn to disc. The evaluation manager documents the game title, developer/publisher, platform, date in, agent and stage of development (concept, pre-alpha, alpha, beta or finished goods) in a product database and then marks the material as confidential. All hard copies and support material are then stored in a locked space that is only accessible by the evaluation manager. This prevents the mishandling of restricted information and keeps products organized.
Initial Product Assessment
When taking a first look at a product, it is important to consider a prospect's track record for several reasons. If the prospect is a developer seeking a sizeable advance, it is important to know if this is their first project or if they have they shipped several titles. Their goals should also be realistic, based on the current market. For many publishers, the team is as important as the demo (particularly for early stage products), so our firm evaluates the potential to "sell" the team as much as the potential of the demo.
If it is quickly apparent that the chances of success are low based on a title's current demo, then it may be necessary to hold off on submitting the game to the full evaluation team. Octagon will then discuss the situation with the developer and ask to see the project when it has a greater likelihood of success.
If a prospect submits a game that requires extensive localization, Octagon gauges the ability of the prospect to deliver a localized product and the cost to localize the game. Localization consumes a great deal of resources and it is important to perform due diligence to make sure a deal can be faithfully executed. If a title cannot be localized in a time- and cost- effective manner, we won't pitch it to non-English speaking markets.
Perform Evaluation and Gather Feedback
All testing is performed in-house to protect confidential material and ensure that games are tested on top-quality machines. Most games are reviewed by at least three evaluators to ensure that the scores reflect a true average and not the bias of one person. The guideline is to have as many evaluators as needed look at a title before passing feedback to the agent that is working with the developer or publisher. The goal is to get to this point within two weeks of the product submission, though this is contingent on the number of products in evaluation (for example, the process is sometimes delayed after major trade shows).
Several tools help quantify evaluator input. A product evaluation database assigns a number to each product, keeping feedback organized and easily identifiable. Each evaluator enters scores and comments into an evaluation form and a corresponding spreadsheet. An evaluation summary worksheet tracks individual data for all games in evaluation and gives a broad look at the current index of prospects. Massively multiplayer online game surveys help assess opportunities specifically for those types of games.
The evaluation form's chief focus is on a game's single-player experience. It is broken down into several sections, each of which contains questions that are ranked and scaled in regard to importance. These include:
A game's overall fun factor, for example, is allotted more points than the AI, since fun factor is a top priority (plus not much AI may be implemented due to a game's stage of development). After scores are allotted for different features, a questionnaire section asks evaluators to list games they have recently played (to determine their personal preferences), to compare the game at hand to potential competitors, list what they like most and least about the title, give suggestions on how the game can be improved, disclose whether they would purchase the game and, if so, at what price point.
The points from the evaluation form are then entered into a spreadsheet that calculates the average score for a review. The average is then entered into an evaluation summary spreadsheet that tracks the game's composite average and score variance. Each evaluator's average score as well as his or her personal variance is reflected in the table as well. This way, the average and variance for each game can be viewed side by side along with each evaluator's individual data. This helps track which people typically assign higher scores and what their preferences are realistically (not necessarily what they indicated when they were hired). Thus, data from this table offers a "big picture" and helps build upon existing team member profiles.
A more qualitative approach is taken to assess a massively multiplayer online game's market potential. Evaluators make appointments to log on to a server, set up accounts and either play against each other or the developer. Once testers feel they are familiar with a game, they fill out a survey that is similarly broken down into sections like those in the evaluation form. First, the system specs of the machine are documented along with any other significant technical information (e.g., the server is located in South America and therefore runs slowly). Then the tutorial is scored on factors such as helpfulness, interactivity and seamlessness. Next, the graphics, interface and controls are critiqued. If applicable, the single-player experience is graded. Part of the multiplayer assessment is based on the smoothness of gameplay, quality of communication and combat features. Points are also given for sound effects and musical score, content, complexity and difficulty. Evaluators are also asked to compare the game to similar products, document their likes and dislikes, offer suggestions and disclose what kind of payment model would be ideal if they were to purchase the game.
Octagon's core value proposition is to generate "better deals, faster" and the company's operations are based on this principle. Once the feedback on a title is presented to the appropriate agent, Octagon decides whether or not the company can quickly secure a winning deal for the game. First, the sales potential is estimated and weighed against the needs of the prospect versus that of possible publishers or licensees. The evaluation scores and comments are discussed and the prospect history is once again taken into account along with the marketability of the game. Several questions may arise during this deliberation period:
The agents must conclude whether Octagon can create a success based on the answers to the above questions. A decision is then made to move forward on an opportunity, wait for a new build of the game that incorporates more features, or simply decline to move forward with the prospect. If our firm wants to represent a game, a contract is drawn up and presented to the potential client.
Onward and Upward
Once a prospect has been signed as a client, Octagon further utilizes the feedback from evaluators and agents to create a comprehensive sales and marketing package that enables the agents to effectively shop the game to publishers in North America, Europe and Asia. The agents then proceed to introduce the opportunity to publishing partners and drive the negotiation process to secure a lucrative deal for the client with the best publishers worldwide.